Dual core sounds really cool and it is cool technology. The fact that you have two working cores on the same sized socket as single core is sweet and it's definitely needed to take CPU design to the next level considering how hot modern high MHz CPUs run these days. One of my concerns about the dual core technology is the naming system that AMD have chosen. It confuses people. People read Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and they mentally think of 2 3800+ CPUs. That's not the case at all. It's closer to two Athlon 64 3200+ CPUs in terms of clock speed. Although there are two cores, every game we tested equals the performance of one single core 3200+. FarCry has dual core support but during testing I monitored CPU usage and if 75% of one core was in use, only 25% of the other core was used. So you still have the equivalent of one CPU core sitting there doing nothing.

I would rather think of that if the name would be AMD Athlon64 2X 3800+, but yeah, not everybody is a smart as me :leet:

easypanic

1st March 2006 20:27

"If you like playing games but you also use your system for other applications like ripping music, video editing, graphics editing, burning CDs etc, I would definitely recommend a dual core over a single core. The performance increase in multi-tasking outweighs the drop in fps. Dual core truly comes to life if you want to play World of War Craft whilst chatting on Teamspeak and ripping a DVD all at the same time. Windows is quite capable of allocating the appropriate applications to each core to spread the workload."